Appeal 2007-1472
Application 10/440,770
teach the invention as recited in independent claim 11. We find that
Appellants main contention lies in the following argument:
Thus, the system of the Torrey patent uses the wireless telephone to
interface a plurality of wire-line extension telephones with the
wireless network. The wire-line extension telephones share a common
telephone number (assigned to the telephone line) and can only
originate or receive calls when the wireless handset is not in use.
Thus, the wire-line telephones are slave devices to the wireless
telephone in the case of originating and receiving cellular calls.
(Br. 8 and repeated in Reply Brief at 7). We do not find Appellants’
argument to be persuasive since we find no element of the claim to be
missing from Torrey as long as the wireless handset is not in use. We
conclude, that when the handset is not in use, Torrey teaches the invention as
recited in independent claim 11, and we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 11 and claims 1, 3, 10, 13, and 20 grouped
therewith.
OBVIOUSNESS
With respect to dependent claims 2, 4-9, 12, and 14-19, Appellants
rely upon the same argument advanced regarding independent claim 11.
Appellants contend that the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness since those elements missing in Torrey are neither taught by
Malmstrom nor Pulver. We disagree with Appellants, as discussed above,
and find no deficiency in Torrey. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not
persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 4-9, 12,
and 14-19 since Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s initial
showing.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013